5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Gdańsk.
6.  On 21 October 1987 the applicant's mother lodged an action against E.A. for establishment of paternity and child maintenance with the Gdańsk District Court. The hearings in the case were adjourned on several occasions as E.A. had left the country and failed to appear in court. Although the applicant's mother provided the court with E .A.'s address abroad, the court maintained that the address was unknown.
7.  The first hearing in the case was held on 5 February 1988, the subsequent one on 18 November 1988. Two hearings were held in 1989 and seven hearings in 1990.
8.  On 4 April 1991 the Gdańsk District Court delivered a judgment in the applicant's favour. The judgment was not challenged and became final.
9.  On 18 June 1997 the Minister of Justice lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment.
10.  On 25 September 1997 the Supreme Court remitted the case for re‑examination on the grounds that serious procedural shortcomings had been committed by the court examining the case, namely that it had not conducted a thorough investigation to establish the address of the defendant.
11.  The Gdańsk District Court resumed the proceedings in 1998. In 1999 no hearings were held. On several occasions the applicant and her mother reported to the Academy of Medicine in Gdańsk to have blood samples taken. E.A. refused to do so.
12.  On 31 August 2000 a legal-aid lawyer was appointed to represent the applicant.
13.  On 3 November 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims.
14.  On 28 February 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court remitted the case for re-examination on the grounds of errors in the assessment of evidence committed by the lower court.
15.  In 2002 the parties were several times summoned to appear at the Academy of Medicine for examination, but the appointments were postponed on several occasions upon the court's requests. It also transpires from the file that at least on one occasion the District Court failed to inform the applicants about the date of examination.
16.  On 8 June 2002 the District Court admitted an opinion of experts in forensic medicine.
17.  On 10 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant's action. The applicants appealed.
18.  On 12 September 2003 the Regional Court admitted an opinion of an expert in graphology.
19.  On 29 December 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court remitted the case for re-examination on the grounds of shortcomings in the assessment of evidence.
20.  Since the defendant resided in Germany, on 13 April 2004 the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court requested a German court to take evidence in the case. On 6 September 2004 and 26 October 2004 the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court requested the German court to expedite the proceedings. It submitted a reply on 14 December 2004.
21.  In December 2004 the applicant turned eighteen and reached the legal age of majority.
22.  On 17 January 2005 the court asked the applicant whether she wished to pursue the claim. She confirmed her wish to pursue the case.
23.  On 17 February 2005 the District Court admitted evidence from experts in dactyloscopy and graphology. The reports were served on the applicant on 21 March 2005.
24.  On 11 April 2006 the District Court delivered a judgment, dismissing the applicant's action for establishment of paternity and child maintenance. The applicant appealed.
25.  On 30 June 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's claims.
26. On 20 September 2004 the applicant's lawyer lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). On 15 November 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the complaint without providing written grounds for its decision.
27.  On 2 March 2005 the applicant lodged a new complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act alleging excessive length of the proceedings and lack of due diligence on the part of the courts. She submitted, inter alia, that no hearings had been held since April 2004. She sought acceleration of the proceedings and just satisfaction for their unreasonable length
28.  On 9 May 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed her complaint finding it ill-founded. The court stressed that the 2004 Act could be applied only to delays which had occurred after the date of its entry into force. Therefore, the Act could be applied to proceedings that had begun earlier only insofar as the delays in the proceedings concerned had not yet been remedied on that date. The Regional Court quoted at this point the Supreme Court's resolution of 18 January 2005 (see the domestic law part below). The Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint on the grounds that on the date of entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the District Court's conduct could be discerned. Subsequently the Regional Court refused to give any instructions to the lower court, finding that such instructions could be given only if the complaint had been allowed.